See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325615804

Gamification in education: Real benefits or edutainment?

Preprint · May 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28673.56162

CITATIONS READS

9 21,503

3 authors, including:

Jihan Rabah Robert Cassidy

Concordia University Montreal Concordia University
3 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 2,300 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Cassidy on 07 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Gamification in education: Real benefits or edutainment?

Jihan Rabaha , Robert Cassidyb , Robert Beauchemina

a eConcordia, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
b Centre for Teaching and Learning, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

Abstract
Gamification of learning – the application of game design elements to learning activities – is currently a hot, if controversial,
trend in education. Proponents of gamification, on the one hand, claim that gamification leads to learning gains. They assert that
gamification reinforces important skills in education, such as problem-solving, collaboration, and communication. Furthermore,
they maintain that need for interaction in a gamified approach to education encourages students to play an active role in the learning
process, thereby increasing student engagement in online forums, projects, and other learning activities. Detractors of gamification,
meanwhile, argue that it derails learning with aimless distractions, adds unnecessary competition stress, and fails to take into account
certain learners’ pedagogical needs. Research on gamification is gathering momentum and promises to help adjudicate many of the
issues raised in this controversy. We therefore conducted a second-order review to examine the evidence-based discourse on this
aspect of gamification. We found that while the review literature adequately summarizes evidence in support of effectiveness in
terms of cognitive, emotional/motivational, and behavioural outcomes, certain design issues remain unaddressed. When addressing
effectiveness, a concern for how the nature of learning objectives and the quality of learning activities that are gamified is noticeably
absent in the field. Furthermore, a contextual bias towards STEM courses limits the generalizability of evidence to other contexts.
The review literature further suggests a publication bias and an over-emphasis on positive effects. Nevertheless, recognising the
general scope of the research, its theory, and evidence, will help instructors and curriculum designers interested in gamifying courses
decide how to approach gamified course designs to use in a specific context. Highlighting current limitations in the evidence-based
discourse may benefit the design of future research by drawing attention to the types of evidence that will help advance gamification
in educational settings.
Keywords: gamification in education, higher education, learning design elements, motivation, engagement, learning outcomes

1. Background cess, thereby supporting active learning, problem-based learn-

Gamification has been applied in several domains, includ-
ing education, business, fitness and health domains, but the re-
search field of gamification in education is still in its emergent
stages. Despite Piaget’s early advocacy of games as a way for
children to meaningfully interact with and learn from their en-
vironments, it was not until recently that research on games in
education gained momentum. Indeed, as of 2013, only 26%
of scientific publications in gamification were about its practi-
cal application in education (Seaborn and Fels, 2013), with the
first seminal framework of gamification published only a few
years ago (Deterding et al, 2011).
Despite its late arrival, its popularity has grown rapidly,
largely due to expectations around its ability to solve a perennial
challenge of traditional learning environments: making learn-
ing interesting and engaging. With the advancement of social
media and online gaming, as well as the widespread use of
smart devices, the task of keeping students motivated to learn
has become even more challenging. The introduction of gami-
fication into the classroom stems from the premise that the na-
ture of games and what makes them fun increases students’ in-
trinsic motivation to engage in learning activities (Adams and
Dormans, 2012). The inherent interactivity of games is also
thought to maximize students’ involvement in the learning pro-
Preprint submitted to European Conference on eLearning
ing, and experiential learning (Oblinger, 2004).
Many educators hope that gamification will not only increase
students’ motivation to learn but also make participation in
schoolwork more effective and meaningful. The emerging liter-
ature seems to uphold this view, with evidence that gamification
may be linked to higher numbers of passing students (de Mar-
cos et al, 2017). Gamification of learning environments may
constitute a powerful tool for the acquisition of knowledge,
and might enhance important skills such as problem-solving,
collaboration, and communication (Dicheva et al, 2015). Crit-
ics, however, argue that gamification derails learning with aim-
less distractions, adds unnecessary competition stress, and fails
to take into account certain learners’ pedagogical needs. The
value of gamification in education remains controversial, de-
spite an increasing number of empirical studies and literature
reviews that may inform this controversy. The present study
aims to ascertain the extent to which literature reviews in the
field of gamification are adequately addressing relevant issues
to inform this debate.
June 6, 2018
2. Definition(s) of Gamification in Education
In defining the scope of our study, we build on the defini-
tions of gaming, game design elements and gamification set out
by Deterding et al (2011). First is the differentiation between
‘gaming’ and ‘playing’. While playing is a freeform, creative
and open-ended process, gaming is a highly structured process
oriented toward discrete, clearly defined goals. Gamification,
then is defined as “the use of game design elements character-
istic for games (rather than play or playfulness) in non-game
contexts”(p. 13).
Game design elements are more difficult to define, owing
to the multiple theoretical frameworks that have been pro-
duced, each with idiosyncratic classification systems and lev-
els of abstraction. Useful for the current study is the synthe-
sis by Dicheva et al (2015) of the more prominent frameworks
found in the literature (e.g., Deterding et al, 2011; Zichermann
and Cunningham, 2011). Table 1 summarizes the synthesized
framework, which classifies game design elements into two lev-
els of abstraction – game design principles and game mechanics
– with exemplars of each.
Design principles Mechanics
Visible status Badges
Social engagement Points
– competition Levels
– cooperation Rewards
– collaboration Leaderboards
Freedom of choice Progress bars
Freedom to fail Currency
Rapid feedback Avatars
Goals & challenges Countdown clock
Customization
Access, unlock content
Table 1: Game design elements: Classification framework
Common game design principles are those of visible status,
social engagement, freedom of choice, freedom to fail, and
rapid feedback (Dicheva et al, 2015). Visible status, informs
students about a task’s completion status or else shows stu-
dents how they are progressing. Social engagement feeds into
purported needs for competition against individuals or teams
(O’Donovan et al, 2013) but may include team projects and
group learning opportunities (Mak, 2013), as well as coopera-
tion and interaction with classroom peers (Landers and Callan,
2011). Freedom of choice implies that students are free to
choose whichever task(s) they want to complete. For instance,
in Holman, Aguilar, and Fishman (2013), students could choose
between writing an essay, a class blog, a group project, or an in-
dividual project, while in DeShutter and Abeele (2014) options
included making a YouTube video, designing an educational
game, or writing academic essays. The freedom to fail prin-
ciple is exemplified in contexts where students were given the
chance to submit assignments again and to revise their work
without a penalty (Hentenryck and Coffrin, 2014). Rapid feed-
back refers to the gaming context enabling students to receive
feedback on their learning performance.
2
Commonly studies game mechanics are badges, points, lev-
els and rewards. As the more concrete level of elements,
game mechanics are more contextualized than design princi-
ples, more adapted to the specifics of a given learning environ-
ment. Badges generally are icons associated with a learner’s
profile that signal accomplishment and can be linked to several
design principle, such as visible status, goals and challenges.
Points are generally accrued for performance or participation
and are given to reward desired learning behaviours. Again,
they can be linked to and promote several design principles
(e.g., visible status, rapid feedback, competition, etc). Mechan-
ics generally represent an instantiation of a game design princi-
ple. For example, the principle of visible status can be instan-
tiated through the use of a leaderboard, badges, etc. A single
principle may be operationalized by more than one mechanic.
By the same token, a single mechanic can operationalize mul-
tiple principles. For example, a leaderboard can operational-
ize visible status and social engagement. The combinatorial
relations among principles and mechanics raises an important
caution in interpreting the effectiveness of a mechanic without
considering which principle(s) it is used to instantiate, and vice
versa.
Gamification, then, is defined as ‘the use of design elements
characteristic for games (rather than play or playfulness) in
non-game contexts’ (Deterding et al, 2011, p 13). The focus
on game design elements intentionally excludes the considera-
tion of ‘serious games’ or whole educational games when re-
ferring to gamification, as these types of games are so idiosyn-
cratic to context as to not be generalizable and are prohibitively
resource-intensive to produce; they are exceedingly rare in ed-
ucational contexts and out of scope for the current study. Gam-
ification in education therefore is defined as the use of game
design elements in in the context of formal higher education
and with the intention of supporting the acquisition of course-
specific learning objectives. Our study aims to characterize the
current state of discourse in the educational gamification field
by examining the literature review articles, each summarizing
the field’s evaluation of gamification in education.
3. Objective and Methodology
The overall objective of this study is to describe the extant
corpus of relevant literature reviews in order to characterize
the discourse over effectiveness of gamification of learning in
higher education. The assumption driving this second-order re-
view is that literature reviews and meta-analyses most effec-
tively inform evidence-based discourse over issues of effective-
ness of educational innovations, but can unwittingly introduce
blindspots into the discourse. A careful characterization of the
review literature therefore will allow us to present a current
snapshot of the ‘state of the evidence’ as well as identify any
blind spots or gaps that may limit the utility of that evidence
in adjudicating debates over the effectiveness of gamification.
A clear understanding of the gamification in education research
field would likely help researchers and educators marshal and
qualify relevant evidence in discussions over the usefulness and
impact of gamification.
 Our review focuses on the evidence for effectiveness of gam-
ification in education, framed by three specific questions:
1. What are the types of outcomes currently used to decide
effectiveness?
2. What are the types of game design elements used to decide
effectiveness?
3. What limitations can be addressed to better inform dis-
course over effectiveness?
We present here a second-order review – a qualitative anal-
ysis of the review literature on gamification in education, pub-
lished in the past 5 years (2014 – 2018). We conducted sys-
tematic searches using specific keywords to identify relevant
reviews in the field of gamification in education and target-
ing higher education populations in particular. First, we per-
formed a Boolean AND search of key terms on the Google
Scholar and Educational Research Information Center (ERIC)
databases. The terms were: review, gamification, learning,
higher education. We followed up this search with a set of in-
clusion/exclusion criteria where the final articles included in
this study had to satisfy the following criteria: published in
the last five years, pertained to higher education settings, used
a form of gamification for education, and did not use serious
games or whole educational games when referring to gamifica-
tion.
Our search yielded 54 reviews, 10 of which met our inclu-
sion criteria and were analyzed in-depth. (Included reviews are
marked with an asterisk in the References section). Our review
is descriptive in nature, synthesizing findings around what the
literature reviews uncovered with regards to patterns and inter-
preted findings, theories, or recommendations on the area of
gamification in education.
4. Findings
Our examination of the relevant reviews allows us to sum-
marize the core activities, nature of evidence and interpretations
currently informing discourse in the field of gamified education.
4.1. What outcomes are currently used to decide effectiveness?
Effectiveness of gamification is often dealt with in the re-
search literature, yet it is broadly construed around various out-
comes. For example, Mart-Parreo et al (2016) describe a theme
in the literature, termed ‘effectiveness’, that includes cognitive
outcomes as well as various attitudes and emotions about the
gamification experience. The authors also include a separate
theme, ‘engagement’, which is also considered a relevant out-
come to decide effectiveness in a broader sense. Indeed, in
addition to cognitive learning gains, the outcomes most com-
monly considered for effectiveness of gamification in education
are motivation and engagement (Bell, 2017; Faiella et al, 2015;
Hamari et al, 2014). We consider these outcomes in turn.
3
4.1.1. Cognitive learning outcomes
When considered, reviews generally reported that gamifica-
tion had positive effects on cognitive learning outcomes (Bevins
and Howard, 2018; Hamari et al, 2014; Kim et al, 2018). Schol-
ars reported that learning achievement, procedural and declar-
ative knowledge, higher order thinking skills were enriched
by adding a gamification layer (Kim et al, 2018). Gamifica-
tion, does appear to improve learning outcomes on lower-risk
assignments (e.g., quizzes and practical activities) and over-
all course marks but does not appear to significantly influence
performance on final exams (Bevins and Howard, 2018). In
summary, the review literature supports the claim that well-
designed, properly deployed gamification can improve learning
outcomes in different conditions.
Though effectiveness in terms of cognitive learning outcomes
is most closely aligned with the objectives of higher education
courses, literature reviews found a disproportionately low em-
phasis on this outcome. We suggest several reasons for this
discrepancy. First, the effectiveness of gamification on learning
outcomes may depend on the nature of the learning outcomes
targeted (there are many frameworks to provide texture and nu-
ance to these, such as taxonomies elaborated by Bloom, Fink,
Biggs, and others). Also critical are the nature and design of the
learning activities that are gamified to achieve these outcomes.
Motivation for and engagement with effective learning activi-
ties will more likely lead to improved learning outcomes, while
ineffective learning activities may not, no matter how much mo-
tivation and engagement is mustered. A layer of complexity
therefore arises in that the effect of gamification of learning out-
comes requires contextualization with respect to learning out-
comes and is probably mediated by the effectiveness of gam-
ified learning activities on achieving those outcomes. Never-
theless, the most obvious reason for the lack of emphasis on
cognitive outcomes is a pervasive perception that the primary
affordance of gamification is motivation and engagement.
4.1.2. Motivation and emotion
A majority of the literature reviews showed positive effects
of gamification on motivation (Alsawaeir, 2018; Bell, 2017;
Bevins and Howard, 2018; Dicheva, 2015; Faiella, 2015). Stu-
dents perceived gamified courses to be more motivating, inter-
esting, and conducive to learning than other courses (Dicheva et
al, 2015). Particularly, gamification elements transform boring
tasks into interesting ones (Faiella et al, 2015). Emotional out-
comes generally focused on constructs such as motivation, atti-
tude, and enjoyment, which were investigated via interviews or
questionnaires (Alsawaeir, 2018; Hamari et al, 2014). Schol-
ars in the field recommend further research on the impact of
gamification on motivation. To better grasp the effect of gam-
ification on motivation effectively, researchers need to conduct
longitudinal studies or at least identify which combinations of
game design elements are most likely to stimulate intrinsic mo-
tivation (Alsawaier, 2018).
4.1.3. Engagement and behaviour
With regards to gamification and its effect on learners’ en-
gagement, literature reviews generally target engagement as an
outcome in itself (Alsawaier, 2018; Bell, 2017; Bevins and
Howard, 2018; Dicheva et al, 2015; Faiella et al, 2015; Mart-
Parreo et al, 2016; Ortiz et al, 2016). Studies examining ef-
fects of engagement revealed, again, mostly positive results.
These included significantly greater student engagement in fo-
rums and projects; higher rates of attendance, participation, and
material downloads; increased quantity (and continued qual-
ity) of student contributions/answers, higher passing rates, in-
creased volunteering, and undertaking of difficult assignments;
as well as a reduction in student achievement gaps (Dicheva et
al, 2015). Interestingly, participation results in greater student
engagement, particularly if individuals are free to select a pre-
ferred mode of learning (Faiella et al, 2015). In addition, the
better the alignment of coursework, core content, and game el-
ements, the greater the positive the effect on gamification and
engagement. This is especially true if such aspects are linked to
a central narrative (Bell, 2017).
4.1.4. Relations among outcomes
The relations among the cognitive, emotional and be-
havioural outcomes are likely complex and nuanced. For exam-
ple, learning gains resulting from gamification show that results
are not tied to motivation and engagement only. In fact, Sitz-
mann et al (2011) disclosed that gamification in education also
helps self-efficacy and boosts knowledge retention. Faiella et al
(2015) revealed that gamification helps lower anxiety or worry
over the consequences of not doing well. In addition, gamifica-
tion aids in building communities, where participants share tips
and celebrate accomplishments on a whole class level, not only
academic high-achievers (Faiella et al, 2015). Meta-analytic
studies demonstrate that gamification might be quite benefi-
cial and help students achieve better outcomes when certain el-
ements are present (Garland, 2015). These include applying
a gamification layer to courses that last shorter time periods,
such as short-term courses or modules within courses (Garland,
2015). Gamified courses should include elements that demon-
strate time spent on tasks since poor time management is in-
versely related to positive results (Garland, 2015). Last but not
least, feedback that is ongoing, immediate, and meaningful can
have a positive effect on learning outcomes (Faiella et al, 2015).
4.2. What are the types of game design elements used to decide
effectiveness?
4.2.1. Game mechanics
The literature reviews reveal that the most typically used
game mechanics were points, badges, and leaderboards,
(Bevins and Howard, 2018; Hamari et al; 2014; Ortiz et al,
2016). However, gamification is not only about using game
mechanics in courses, but rather using them to overcome chal-
lenges in education and meeting objectives (Kim et al, 2018),
a function that falls closer to the game design principles level
in Table1. In light of that, to better grasp the effect of gami-
fication mechanics on engagement and motivation, researchers
need to study how game mechanics interact with design princi-
ples, and which couplings work well together, in what contexts
(Alsawaier, 2018). Furthermore, these game design elements
4
should be considered also in light of their coupling to ‘learn-
ing design elements’, what we introduce here as the analogical
counterparts to game design elements: ‘learning design princi-
ples’ and ‘learning mechanics’. To properly inform discourse
on effectiveness of gamification in learning, the design princi-
ples and mechanics of both gamification and learning must be
considered together.
4.3. What limitations can be addressed in order to better in-
form discourse over effectiveness?
4.3.1. Context
The literature reviews synthesized here show that context
plays an important role in gamification (Alsawaier, 2018;
Dicheva et al, 2015; Faiella et al, 2015). Gamified designs
and hence their impacts differ depending on the nature of the
learning site, the subject matter, the instructor, and how gam-
ification is to be implemented (Alsawaier, 2018). These con-
textual effects make the effectiveness of gamified learning hard
to synthesize (Dicheva et al, 2015). Furthermore, the descrip-
tive nature of most studies precludes inferential claims about
the effectiveness of gamification despite the many reports of
successful implementations (Hamari et al, 2014). In addition,
gamification cannot be successfully implemented into the class-
room without the support of a solid technological infrastructure
and suitable pedagogical framework (i.e., ‘learning design ele-
ments’). A generalized description of effective gamification of
learning is therefore elusive (Dicheva et al, 2015).
4.3.2. Learner characteristics
Another common aspect of the studies was that learner and
content characteristics clearly determine the impact of gamifi-
cation in education (Faiella et al, 2015; Kim et al, 2018). For
example, student engagement has been found to be particularly
improved if individuals are free to select a preferred mode of
learning (Faiella et al, 2015). Additionally, students’ previous
exposure to video game elements, the number of games played,
prior knowledge of, and exposure to gaming play an important
role on the success of gamified experiences (Alsawaier, 2018;
Garland, 2018; Kim et al, 2018; Mart-Parreo et al 2016). De-
spite some reports, effectiveness research has not been properly
contextualized with regards to how particular kinds of learners
are motivated in different gamified contexts or how personal-
ity traits like extroversion or introversion may impact the social
aspects of a gamified experience.
In sum, gamification studies tend to overlook critical contex-
tual moderators that help explain mixed results on effectiveness.
For example, social dynamics may be moderated by personal-
ity traits like extroversion and responses to gamified instruction
may vary as a result of students’ preferences (Mart-Parreo et al,
2016). In light of the above, evidence is needed to corroborate
practitioners’ claims that newer, innovative formats can lead to
better results with different demographics (Bell, 2017; Ortiz et
al, 2016). To properly assess the impact of gamification, there-
fore, the field is in need of richer predictive models that include
contextual variables as mediating or moderating variables, such
as students’ levels of motivation, personalities, and game pref-
erences (Ortiz et al, 2016).
4.3.3. Biases
Literature reviews also make evident certain biases in the
corpus of primary literature. Most notable and problematic is
the evidence for a disproportionate interest in the benefits of
gamification. Though not explicitly confirmed, this may indi-
cate a publication bias, where only positive results are reported,
either due to a disproportionate search for positive outcomes
while ignoring negative outcomes, or due to the lack of interest
in publishing negative results (file drawer bias). More stud-
ies should, therefore, include a focus on the possible negative
outcomes of gamification, particularly with regard to students’
emotions. Mart-Parreo et al (2016) found that studies largely
fail to explore how gamification might cause frustration, anxi-
ety, or negative social comparison. Similarly, de Marcos et al’s
(2017) study on social gamification reported decreased motiva-
tion and participation as the course progressed, probably due to
the fact that the duration and timing were not taken into account
during the design phase of the course.
Another contextual bias is evident in the preponderance of
research focusing on computer science and IT (STEM) courses
as opposed to other fields (Dicheva et al, 2015; Ortiz et al, 2016;
Kim et al, 2018). This bias might be because implementation
of gamification requires the set-up needed to integrate and envi-
sion game mechanisms and dynamics, which are usually found
the computer science and IT department faculty (Dicheva et al,
2015). On the background of this bias, studies reveal that gami-
fication produced better effects in these STEM subjects than the
humanities (Kim et al, 2018). It is unclear if the application of
gamification in other fields would result in the same findings.
5. Conclusions
Based on our second-order review, we offer recommenda-
tions for further research in the field, with the objective of better
informing debates on the effectiveness of gamification in learn-
ing.
1. The relation between game design principles and game
mechanics is important. Research studies and reviews
would benefit from unpacking game design elements and
explicitly considering which game mechanics are em-
ployed and in service of which game design principles.
2. The relation between game design elements and learning
design elements is important. In addition to a clearer anal-
ysis of the game design elements employed in research
studies, equally important in terms of outcomes is the con-
sideration of ‘learning design elements’, or the pedagog-
ical principles, learning objectives and learning activities
that are gamified. Noticeable are the potential overlaps
between the two sets of principles. For example, ‘rapid
feedback’ is a both principle of game design and peda-
gogy, while ‘levels’ and ‘access’ align well with ‘mastery
learning’ (see e.g., Hattie, 2015), but mechanics do not
overlap. This raises the enticing suggestion that gamifi-
cation of learning is most effective when the principles of
gaming and learning are shared, aligned or even equiva-
lent and operationalized through game mechanics. Fur-
thermore, the effectiveness of the learning activities that
5
are gamified seems a clear prerequisite to effectiveness of
the gamification. Finally, not all types of learning objec-
tives may be equally effectively gamified. More careful
analysis of these factors will help understand what types
of learning are effectively gamified.
3. Contextual variables are important. With a clearer view of
the ‘intervention’ as defined in recommendations 1 and 2,
a clearer view of the contextual models is called for.
4. Richer predictive models will help. Summing up the previ-
ous recommendations, predictive models that include the
relations among game design elements, learning design
elements and contextual variables will benefit our under-
standing of what is best gamified, how, for whom and to
what end.
6. References
Adams, E. and Dormans, J. (2012) Game mechanics: Advanced Game Design,
New Riders, Berkeley.
*Alsawaier, R. (2018) ”The Effect of Gamification on Motivation and Engage-
ment”, The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology,
Vol 35, No. 1, pp 56-79.
*Bell, K. (2017) Game On!: Gamification, Gameful Design, and the Rise of the
Gamer Educator, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Bartel, A. and Hagel, G. (2014) ”Engaging Students with a Mobile Game-based
Learning System in University Education”, Global Engineering Education
Conference Proceedings, pp 957-960.
Bevins, K. and Howard, C. (2018) ”Game Mechanics and Why They Are Em-
ployed: What We know About Gamification So Far”, Issues and Trends in
Educational , Vol 6, No. 1, 1-21.
Darejeh, A. and Salim S. (2016) ”Gamification Solutions to Enhance Software
User Engagement: A Systematic Review”, International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, Vol 32, No. 8, pp 613-642.
de Marcos, L. et al (2016) ”Social Network Analysis of a Gamified e-Learning
Course: Small-world Phenomenon and Network Metrics as Predictors of
Academic Performance”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 60, pp 312-
321.
DeShutter, B. and Abeele, V. (2014) ”Gradequest-Evaluating the Impact of
Using Game Design Techniques in an Undergraduate Course”, Foundation
of Digital Games, Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital
Games, Fort Lauderdale.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. (2011) “From Game De-
sign Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification”, Proceedings of the
15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Me-
dia Environments, pp 9-15.
*Dicheva, D. et al (2015) ”Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping
Study”, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, Vol 18, No. 3, pp 75.
Dominguez, A. et al (2013) ”Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Im-
plications and Outcomes”, Computers & Education, Vol 63, pp 380-392.
*Faiella, F. and Ricciardi, M. (2015) ”Gamification and Learning: A Review
of Issues and Research”, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, Vol
11, No. 3, pp 1-12.
*Garland, C. (2015) ”Gamification and Implications for Second Language Ed-
ucation: A Meta Analysis”, Unpublished Dissertation, St. Cloud State Uni-
versity, Missouri.
Goehle, G. (2013) ”Gamification and Web-based Homework.” Primus, Vol 23,
No. 3, pp 234-246.
*Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., and Sarsa, H. (2014) ”Does Gamification Work? A
Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification”, Hawaii Interna-
tional Conference on System Sciences, pp 3025-3034.
Hattie, J. (2015) “The Applicability of Visible Learning to Higher Education”,
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 79–
91.
Holman, C., Aguilar, S., and Fishman, B. (2013) ”GradeCraft: What Can We
Learn From a Game-inspired Learning Management System?”, Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowl-
edge, pp 260-264.
Kapp, K. M. (2012) The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-
based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Kim, S. et al (2018). Gamification in Learning and Education, Springer, Not-
tingham.
Law, F. L., Kasirun, Z. M., and Gan, C. K. (2011) ”Gamification Towards Sus-
tainable Mobile Application”, Proceedings of the 5th Malaysian Conference
on Software Engineering, pp 349-353.
Landers, R.N. and Callan R. (2011) ”Casual Social Games as Serious Games:
The Psychology of Gamification in Undergraduate Education and Em-
ployee Training”, Serious Games and Edutainment Applications, pp 399-
423, Springer, London.
Lee, J., and Hammer, J. (2011) ”Gamification in Education: What, How, Why
bother?”, Academic Exchange Quarterly, Vol 15, No. 2, pp 146-155.
Losup, A. and Epema, D. (2014) “An Experience Report on Using Gamification
in Technical Higher Education”, Paper presented at Special Interest Group
on Computer Science Education Conference, Atlanta, USA, March.
*Mart-Parreo, J. et al (2016) ”The Use of Gamification in Education: A Biblio-
metric and Text Mining Analysis”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
Vol 32, No. 6, pp 663-676.
Mak, H. W. (2013) ”The Gamification of College Lectures at the University of
Michigan”, Gamification Corporation, Vol 8, pp 2-13.
Mora, A. et al (2015) ”A Literature Review of Gamification Design Frame-
works”, Proceedings of Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications,
pp 1-8.
*Ortiz, M., Chiluiza, K., and Valcke M. (2016) ”Gamification in Higher Edu-
cation and STEM: A Systematic Review of Literature”, Proceedings of Ed-
uLearn 2016: The 8th Annual International Conference on Education and
New Learning Technologies, pp 6548-6558.
Oblinger, D. (2004) ”The Next Generation of Educational Engagement”, Jour-
nal of Interactive Media in Education, Vol 8, No. 1, pp 1-18.
O’Donovan, S., et al (2013) ”A Case Study in the Gamification of a University-
level Games Development Course”, Proceedings of the South African Insti-
tute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference, pp
242-251.
Pirker, J., Riffnaller-Schiefer, M. and Gtl, C. (2014) ”Motivational Active
Learning: Engaging University Students in Computer Science Education”,
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Com-
puter Science Education, pp 297-302.
Simões, J. et al (2013) ”A Social Gamification Framework for a K-6 Learning
Platform”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 29, No. 2, pp 345-353.
Seaborn, K. and Fels, D. (2015) ”Gamification in Theory and Action: A Sur-
vey”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol 74, pp 14-31.
Sitzmann, T. (2011) “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Instructional Effec-
tiveness of Computer-based Simulation Games”, Personnel Psychology, Vol
64, No. 2, pp 489-528.
Van Eck, R. (2006) “Digital Game-based Learning: It?s Not Just the Digital
Natives Who Are Restless”, Educause, Vol 41, No. 2, pp 16?30.
Van Hentenryck P. and Coffrin, C. (2014) “Teaching Creative Problem Solving
in a MOOC”, Proceedings of the 45th Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education, pp 677-782.
Werbach, K. and Hunter, D. (2012) “For the Win: How Game Thinking Can
Revolutionize Your Business”, Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia.
Zichermann, G., and Cunningham, C. (2011) Gamification by Design: Imple-
menting Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps, O’Reilly Media, Se-
bastopol.

View publication stats